resource_term_add

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavior beyond that: the row is written as provided and a new row is created when no match exists, hinting at whole-row overwrite/upsert semantics. It still omits auth needs, logging, merge behavior, and impact on existing fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is short but under-specified rather than concise. The bold label '人拍的板' is cryptic and the description is not front-loaded with an actionable purpose, making it hard to scan or reuse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 12-parameter, destructive, nested-object add tool with no output schema, one opaque sentence is far from complete. It omits how key/source/target/profile interact, the meaning of project/workdir defaults, position enum behavior, and how partial fills affect existing rows.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description only echoes part of the 'exact' parameter and mentions five columns; it adds no syntax, examples, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a cryptic operational note ('人拍的板：整行按给进来的那份写...') rather than a clear statement of purpose. It implies writing/creating a row, but never names the resource term table or distinguishes from siblings such as resource_term_propose, resource_term_import, or resource_term_remove.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The clause '找不到同一行就新开一行' describes upsert behavior, not usage guidance, so an agent cannot tell when this tool should be chosen over sibling add/import/propose tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.